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 And of course, it has become increasingly out of date.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.
[^o)]
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.
Perhaps this is a good argument for reading Koester's volume, as it seems there's a bit more to this than your statement implies, and he does deal with this issue.
But who knows .... a good portion of the early church (eastern) wasn't on board with the book as Christian. Perhaps this is a good argument for reading Koester's volume, as it seems there's a bit more to this than your statement implies, and he does deal with this issue.
Well, I'd certainly hope so.
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.
Histories of the New Testament canon that include the Nestorians/Syriac church usually have a bit on the topic. Studies of the Eastern Orthodox lectionaries usually have something on the lack of or sparse use of Revelation. Arguments against the Montanists sometimes cover it. Luther presents arguments against it. Some introductions to commentaries on the book cover it, but I don't know a single, coherent source on the topic. The major arguments question its apostolic authorship, find it stylistically incompatible with the rest of the NT, and are concerned with its late and non-unanimous entry into the canon.
[quote]F. REVELATION
There are no certain traces of Revelation in the Apostolic Fathers. The closest parallels, of course, come from the Visions section of the Shepherd of Hermas:
Herm. Vis. 1.1.3 and Rev 17:3 Herm. Vis. 2.2.7; 4.2.5; 4.3.6 and Rev 3:10 and 7:14 Herm. Vis. 2.4 and Rev 12:1 Herm. Vis. 4.1.6 and Rev 9:3 Herm. Sim. 8.2.1, 3 and Rev 2:10; 3:11; and 6:11 Barn. 7.9 and Rev 1:7, 13 Barn. 21.3 and Rev 22:10–12
Charles claims that Revelation was all but universally accepted (and consequently used in an authoritative manner) in Asia Minor, western Syria, Africa, Rome, and south Gaul in the second century.69 Justin appears to have been the first to say that the book of Revelation was written by John the Apostle (Dial. 81.15; cf. also 1 Apol. 28, which refers to Rev 12:9). According to Eusebius, Apollonius used Revelation in the second century to write against the Montanists (Hist. eccl. 5.18.14). Clement of Alexandria (Christ the Educator 2.119) cites Revelation as Scripture and as the work of John the Apostle (Salvation of the Rich 42 and Strom. 6.106–107). Charles further notes that, according to Tertullian, Marcion rejected the traditional authorship of John and the Alogi of the second century rejected the writing altogether.According to Eusebius, Dionysius the Great of Alexandria (ca. 260–64) wrote a critical appraisal of the authorship of the book (Hist. eccl. 7.24–25) and concluded that it was not written by John the Apostle. Eusebius placed Revelation among the doubtful books in his own collection of Christian writings (Hist. eccl. 3.24.18; 3.25.4). Cyril of Jerusalem rejected the book altogether and forbade its use in public or private (Catechetical Lectures 4.36). Around 360, Revelation did not get included in the canon list of the Council of Laodicea or in the canon 85 of the Apostolic Constitutions. Most scholars contend, as Charles shows70 that Revelation was ignored or rejected in many Eastern churches in the fourth century. On the other hand, some Eastern writers did accept and refer to Revelation: Melito of Sardis, Jerome, Theophilus of Antioch, Apollonius of Hierapolis, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen (see details in §I.D item #7 above).Significant rejection of Revelation in the East did not occur until the end of the fourth century, when Cyril of Jerusalem excluded Revelation without comment (Catechetical Lectures 4.36). On the other hand, Epiphanius of Salamis still included it at the end of the fourth century (Pan. 76.5), as did Jerome (Letter to Paul 53) and Codex Alexandrinus (425).
Lee Martin McDonald, The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority (Grand Rapids, MI: Hendrickson Publishers, 2011), 398–399.
[quote]
It remains a mystery why Revelation is included in the canon as part of a group of Johannine writings. Perhaps the author or an editor deliberately linked it to the Johannine writings through its introduction (Rev 1:1–3):4 the author had his revelation, written down in Revelation, from God, mediated to him by Christ and an angel, so that the result is a revelatory sequence: “God—Christ—angel—John—book of Revelation.” We could construct a parallel chain of revelation from John’s Gospel: “God—Christ—Paraclete—Beloved Disciple—Gospel of John,”5 even though this sequence does not precisely correspond to that in the Gospel of John in which the Beloved Disciple is immediately next to Jesus. Much closer is the relationship of the two writings at their respective ends. When Christ promises at the end of Revelation, “Surely I am coming soon” (Rev 22:12, 20), this seems to link to the end of the Gospel of John: there was a promise associated with the Beloved Disciple that Christ would come before he died. He was to experience the parousia (John 21:23). This recalls the author of Revelation, to whom Jesus reveals that he will come soon. However, this relationship is not certain.Despite this later (?) connection between Revelation and the Gospel of John, there is a contrast between the content of the two writings: Revelation is full of religious aggressivity, while John’s Gospel represents a theology of love. But despite the disparity in their content, it may be that both portray the history of their supporting groups: behind Revelation could be an early Christian prophetic group who had fled from Palestine to Asia Minor. Likewise, the Gospel of John could have been brought to Ephesus by emigrants from Syria. These emigrants brought a variety of theologies with them, but in a “foreign land” they felt they belonged together despite their theological differences. Thus, there may have been a limited exchange between them.
• In terms of literary history we observe a converging development: the group behind the Gospel of John adapted the letter form secondarily in the three Johannine letters, which was an accepted move because of the Pauline mission. The same occurred in the group behind Revelation: the author of Revelation formulated his prophetic sayings in the seven letters secondarily in the letter form accepted in Asia Minor (Rev 2:1–3:22) and shaped Revelation’s beginning and end to make it a letter. • Despite all the contrasts, there is a structural commonality in the theology, namely, the opposition to the world. In John’s Gospel this appears as a “metaphysical” dualism between light and darkness, truth and lie, God and Satan, the “ruler of this world” behind whom sometimes the current world rulers, the Romans, are visible. Corresponding to this in Revelation is a mythologically encoded power struggle between the Roman Empire and the community. The Roman Empire is Satan. • Added to this there are a few individual motifs that link Revelation to the Gospel of John: the image of “living water,”6 the identification of Jesus with the “Word of God,”7 and his designation as “Lamb of God.”8 In both writings “testimony” plays an important role (Rev 1:2; John 5:31–47; 8:13–19). • The church order reveals parallels: the apocalypticist intervenes in the communities through his letters, bypassing the local authorities. John the evangelist ignores them in his image of the vine. Here there is no place for a bishop between the branches and the vine; all Christians are directly linked to Christ.
Thus when, in the canon, the Johannine corpus is regarded as a unified group of writings despite theological differences among those writings, this may retain memories of emigrant groups from Syria and Palestine who shaped the history of early Christianity in Asia Minor. In that sphere there may have occurred a limited exchange of motifs and attitudes.
Gerd Theissen, The New Testament: A Literary History, trans. Linda M. Maloney (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012), 192–194.
Well that's a start.
thanks
Also to note as with all series long in the tooth volumes often get replaced with new ones there is not one original volume of the Tyndale New Testament commentary and most of the TOTC seem to be being replaced. In the world of Anchor the next volume I know of being replaced is Mathew, while I like the current version I know it is scheduled to be replaced sometime in the near future. Just the nature of a series started long ago.
-dan
To my mind, the question as to why some traditions do accept the book is no less interesting. [:)]
