I've got both, but why are there two? Was it because Ford was too 'liberal' and Koester is not? One man's liberalness is another's normalness...
mm.
I've never known Anchor to fear being accused of being innovative (a.k.a. "liberal" to some [:)]). Now, I've given no effort to get an official explanation from Yale on this particular issue, but here's my 2 cents (one cent per point):
A) As you know, it's common for volumes in a series to be refreshed for any number of reasons.
But in this case, the age of Ford's volume and the fact that her effort never seemed to gain a place of prominence in discussions about Revelation (or at least it hasn't proven lasting influence) might demonstrate its irrelevance to current conversations -- a situation the Anchor Bible never wants to find itself in.
This latter point is just my theory.
The Anchor Bible series has been going since at least the 1960's. In that time scholarship has changed in its focuses, and the Anchor series itself has evolved from being deliberately short works aimed at non-technical readers into a main-stream commentary. Some of the early volumes have not gone over well, and Ford's commentary on Revelation was one I was warned against when I was in school in the 1990's. Not because it was "Liberal" or "Conservative" bur rather because it is idiosyncratic in its views while also being too short and non-technical to really argue its own views, nor to give any overview of more main-stream views on the text. And of course, it has become increasingly out of date. Because of this, they have had replacements written for multiple books over the years.
I have not used either volume (although I have read a book by Koester on Revelation), but from the reviews I have seen, the newer Koester volume is much improved.
Not because it was "Liberal" or "Conservative" bur rather because it is idiosyncratic in its views while also being too short and non-technical to really argue its own views, nor to give any overview of more main-stream views on the text.
Good response. Matthew, Mark, Acts, and Hebrews (examples) sort of tracked the obvious, but then hopped in the fire for an unusual theory.
The Hebrews volume is an interesting one:
https://www.amazon.com/Hebrews-Anchor-Bible-Vol-36/product-reviews/0385029950/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_show_all_btm?ie=UTF8&reviewerType=all_reviews
I think Ford had some kind of far off conclusions in her volume which made it somewhat unpopular. For instance, if I remember correctly, she argues that John the Baptist wrote it.
John the Baptist wrote it.
Wrote the central portion, with a later wrapper. It's not far-fetched, since the writing patterns do shift, independent of subject/genre. But who knows .... a good portion of the early church (eastern) wasn't on board with the book as Christian.
But who knows .... a good portion of the early church (eastern) wasn't on board with the book as Christian.
Most still only give lip service to its canonicity ... they don't bother to print it and/or don't use it in worship but admit it is canonical to be in agreement with the church as a whole. It's not only the Oriental Orthodox; the Russian Orthodox does not use it in worship.
so where would I go to find out some reasons why some traditions don't accept the book?
But who knows .... a good portion of the early church (eastern) wasn't on board with the book as Christian. Most still only give lip service to its canonicity ... they don't bother to print it and/or don't use it in worship but admit it is canonical to be in agreement with the church as a whole. It's not only the Oriental Orthodox; the Russian Orthodox does not use it in worship.
