Book of Revelation, The

Trinity Journal, Spring 2000 by Luter, A Boyd

When evaluating a revision of a previously-published work, an obvious initial question is, "How much has it, in fact, been revised?" Unfortunately, in Mounce's case, that is not as easy to ascertain as might be expected.

For example, in his prefatory remarks (pp. xv-xvi), Mounce leaves the impression that, after consultation with series editor Gordon Fee, he determined to undertake a significant rewrite of the work. But, is that what is encountered in this commentary? Not in regard to the most obvious indicator: length. Though such revision often implies expansion, the revised volume (some 475 pp.) is only a relatively few pages longer than the original (426 pp.). Yes, the pages are slightly larger, but so is the print. In the end, the length of the newer edition tells you little, if anything.

Another plausible initial indicator regarding the proportion of revision would be the updating of the bibliography. Admittedly, it is termed a "Select Bibliography." However, a survey of Mounce's revised bibliographic listings (pp. xxi-xxxvi) reveals an only marginal awareness of the huge mass of material since the mid-1970s which he might have taken into account. Of the roughly ninety commentaries now listed, only some twenty-five per cent have appeared since Mounce's first edition. Of the one hundred fifty journal articles, only twenty-six per cent are more recent (including, amazingly, only one of Beale's numerous studies). Among "Other Works Consulted," less than twenty per cent have more recent publication dates.

What are we to make of this? Well, Mounce certainly cannot be accused of discarding the old, though he is in danger of appearing to overlook the new. His perspective could be that many older works have more "staying power" in their understanding of the Apocalypse than the credit they often receive, though he does not seem to champion that cause at all. Rather, there seems to be a simpler explanation (see below).

Finally, as will be discussed below, there is actually very little that has changed even in Mounce's commentary proper. What has changed, though, is a good bit of the window dressing of the volume, notably in four areas: 1) the NIV replaces the heavily dated ASV as the English text cited at the beginning of each section of comment; 2) the critical apparatus of Nestle-- Aland's twenty-seventh edition replaces Kilpatrick; 3) the abbreviations used are those of the 1994 JBL guidelines; and 4) each section of comment now has an introductory overview (which, by itself, accounts for much of the modest addition in overall length).

By contrast, it is vitally important to discern from the beginning that Beale's interpretive approach is a bright new coat of paint on a widely-- trafficked ancient view. Some important (and, theoretically, positive) modifications not withstanding, it is still basically the "Idealist" view popularized by Augustine, though Beale prefers to call it "Eclecticism, or a Redemptive-Historical Form of Modified Idealism." The major reason for these modifications, fairly obviously, is the well-known historic tendency of the Idealist position to degenerate beyond spiritualizing into allegorization. Beale conveniently stays far away from the history of interpretation in his discussion of interpretive approaches, though. And, given his undeniable tendency throughout to thorough, often exhaustive, discussion, it is telling that he invests just one-quarter of a page, far less than on any of the other views, describing the Idealist position. Beale's "Modified Idealism," linked with his discussions of the "Interpretation of Symbolism" (pp. 50-69) and his push for a recapitulation understanding of "The Structure and Plan of John's Apocalypse" (pp. 108-51) largely prejudice the case in advance toward a consistently amillennial understanding of Revelation.