Book Reviews One noticeable difference of opinion between Beale’s 1999 and 2015 commentaries regards authorship. In 1999, Beale never defended John the Apostle as the author but instead suggested that the authorship was unimportant and “not crucial” (1999, 36, n. 11), since “regardless of which John wrote, the author . . . identifies himself as a prophet” (1999, 35–36). Now, in 2015, Beale states, “We can presume with confidence that this letter [i.e., Revelation] is indeed a record of a vision given to the beloved disciple [i.e., John the Apostle of the Fourth Gospel], now an old man, at the very close of the New Testament period” (3). Beale’s change of mind on this matter is because, to him, “It is highly unlikely that another John, originally a Jew from Palestine but otherwise unknown to us, lived and worked among the churches of Asia and carried such a level of authority” (2). Unfortunately, in the 1990s, as Beale (NIGTC, 1999) and David E. Aune (Word Biblical Commentary, 3 vols, 1997–98) were working on their massive commentaries on Revelation simultaneously, they did not have the opportunity to interact with each other in print, except for a brief review of Beale’s commentary by Aune. This lack of published dialogue continues in 2015, as this shorter volume does not attempt to respond to secondary literature, and Aune’s commentary is strangely absent in Beale’s list of recommended resources (ix). Books should be evaluated based on their purpose. This newer commentary was not intended to replace or even update Beale’s earlier work as a second edition after 16 years. His goal was to offer a concise, more readable alternative. Unfortunately, the complexities of the Apocalypse demand lengthy explanations, and commentaries on the Apocalypse are not a good place to practice the cultural
120