Posted by Georg S. Adamsen on January 3, 2008
Beale, Gregory K. The Use of Daniel in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature and in the Revelation of St. John. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 1984. xiv + 349 pp.
Beale’s thesis is based on his 1980 Cambridge Ph. D. dissertation with some revision.
It is an important study for many reasons. Firstly, Beale makes a significant methodological contribution to this then new field of study. Secondly, he provides many insights into both Daniel and Revelation.
Review:
- Poythress, Vern Sheridan. In: Westminster Theological Journal 47 (1985): 348-50 (available online here)
Posted by Georg S. Adamsen on January 1, 2008
Beale, Gregory K. John’s Use of the Old Testament in Revelation. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series, no. 166. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. 443 pp.
A standard-setting study published in the early 1999. The volume includes the following chapters that, for some parts, are reprints or revisions of earlier publications. With this volume, one has ready access to several of Beale’s important contributions to the problem of John’s Use of the OT. Unfortunately, this volume is out of print.
- Introduction: Recent Discussion and Debate about the Use of the Old Testament in Revelation (pp. 13-59)
- The Various Ways John Uses the Old Testament (pp. 60-128)
- The Influence of the Old Testament upon the Eschatology of Revelation (The chapter covers: the ‘already and not yet-eschatology; the interpretation of Rev 1:19; the temporal scope of the sevenfold series of trumpets and bowls; the use of mustêrion in Revelation and elsewhere; and the OT background of Rev 3:14) (pp. 129-294)
- The Influence of the Old Testament upon the Symbolism of Revelation [The chapter covers: symbolism as the predominate mode of communication, and the hearing formula]
- The Influence of the Old Testament on the Grammar of Revelation: Solecisms in Revelation as Signals for the Presence of Old Testament Allusions (A Selective Analysis of Revelation 1-22] (pp. 318-355; this chapter is a revision of Beale’s contribution in Evans & Sanders, Early Christian Interpretation)
- The Bearing of the Old Testament on the Interpretation of the Millennium in Revelation 20:1-7 (pp. 356-393)
The back matters consist of bibliography and indices of References and Authors. The front matters include a list of abbreviations and information about the relationship to Beale’s earlier publications.
Kenneth Newport, review of G. K. Beale, John’s Use of the Old Testament in Revelation, Review of Biblical Literature [http://www.bookreviews.org] (2000) and
James E. West, review of G. K. Beale, John’s Use of the Old Testament in Revelation, Review of Biblical Literature [http://www.bookreviews.org] (2000).
Posted by Georg S. Adamsen on December 31, 2007
Beale, Gregory K., and Donald A. Carson, eds. Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2007. 1280 pp.
See here for the chapter on Revelation.
See the publisher’s information here.
Buy at Amazon: US
* UK
* DE
Posted by Georg S. Adamsen on
Gregory K. Beale and Sean McDonough has written the chapter on Revelation in a forthcoming commentary: Beale, Gregory K., and Donald A. Carson. 2007. Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic.
This commentary includes chapters on all the NT books, written by distinguished scholars.
More to follow later.
Buy at Amazon: US * UK * DE
Posted by Georg S. Adamsen on August 24, 2007
Beale, G. K. The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdsmans Publishing, 1999.
Beale’s commentary, a 1200+ page commentary, is probably the most interesting commentary published for several decades. It features a lengthy introduction covering among other things a discussion of the symbolism and imagery of Revelation (pp. 50-69), the structure of Revelation, and the relationship to the Old Testament.
On other hand, it has a surprisingly short discussion of, e.g., authorship. It is clear that Beale has a theological understanding of Revelation which means, among other things, that he constantly asks for the theological meaning of the text. Moreover, the theological meaning cannot be understood apart from the communicative meaning, and Beale therefore discusses the meaning of the various pericopes in the light of the overall meaning and function of Revelation, as he understands it.
Two other interesting features is Beale’s extensive analyses of the OT relations and his many references to Jewish literature.
Beale’s commentary is therefore a profound theological commentary that meets many of today’s standards within NT research.
However, one of the major questions is whether Beale’s actual analyses of both Revelation, the OT, and the relationship between them, are appropriate. Beale insists that the eschatological content of Revelation must be understood mainly not only in the light of the eschatological tension (i.e. the “already” – “not yet” pespective), but as taking place in the time between the already (Christ’s first coming) and the not yet (Christ’s second coming).
While this is a fairly common interpretation, it is not so common to see that events which are clearly understood as strictly future (i.e. belong only to the “not yet”-perspective) are forced into the interpretive scheme of already – not yet. It can hardly be denied that John did understand Christ’s coming (i.e. the Son of Man’s coming with the clouds) as still future.
Nevertheless, Beale argues emphatically that they are only or mainly to be understood in the present perspective. Beale cites many texts in support of his various interpretations, but they are not always appropriate, in my opinion. Often only the later rabbinic texts support his interpretation. Revelation is a profound Jewish text, deeply rooted in the OT, but it is also a profound Christian text, identifying Jesus with the OT Messiah, the Son of Man, and the Servant of the Lord, to mention but three OT aspects.
When Beale adduces later rabbinic-Jewish texts in support of his non-christological interpretation of Dan 7, then this is hardly appropriate. The non-messianological interpretation of Dan 7 was not “invented” before the third century and is not found in the Jewish apocalypses (4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, 1 Enoch) which is roughly contemporary or earlier than Revelation.
Beale’s use of the later rabbinic-Jewish texts is therefore problematic and should be used with great caution (see further my analysis in a posting on Revelation mailing list, which is, unfortunately, not online at the moment [unfinished]).
Moreover, when Beale discusses the interpretive significance of the OT allusions, he often seems to accept the modern, critical OT exegesis. The problem is that John (and the rest of the NT) obviously did not interpret the OT as many modern, critical exegetes do. The issue is not whether the modern OT interpretations are correct or helpful, but whether they can appropriately be used in the interpretation of John’s revelation.
To sum up: Beale’s opus magnum is a very important tool, yes, a must for theological work with Revelation, but should be used with caution, particularly when it comes to his overall theological interpretation of Revelation.
Reviews:
Buy at Amazon: US
* UK
* DE
This volume is also available electronically from Logos Bible Software
