Revelation: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, by Craig R. Koester (Anchor Yale Bible, Yale University Press, 2014), 928 pages.
Reviewer Paul Hoskins (bio here) specializes in Johannine literature and currently in Revelation specifically. He is also the creator of a Greek parsing app called Master Greek. It is a fantastic app to quiz yourself on any combination of parts of speech to enable you to better read your Greek New Testament.
Craig Koester is a professor of New Testament at Luther Seminary in St. Paul, Minnesota. He is a familiar name for anyone who has an eye on contributors to Johannine studies. Several years ago (2001), he published a short overview of the book of Revelation entitled Revelation and the End of All Things. That work is a helpful preview to the commentary that I am reviewing here, but the two works do not always agree. This is as one would expect, because Koester undoubtedly learned a great deal from the detailed work that has produced a significant commentary on the book of Revelation.
A major strength of Koester’s work is its attempt to give a close reading of Revelation that imposes relatively few historical or theological presuppositions upon it. It is true that his commentary fits primarily within the camp of preterism, which means that he ties Revelation closely to the first century and relates the work of the Beast to Rome. Even so, his preference for preterism does not keep him from seeing the “seven kings” of Revelation 17:10 as a symbolic number of kings rather than a reference to seven identifiable Roman emperors (73, 690-1).
Another instance of the same strength occurs with reference to his treatment of the Millennium. Koester notes various positions that interpreters have held with respect to the Millennium (741-50), but his main focus is upon trying to see what Revelation 20:1-10 plainly says. He then critiques those views that appear to be in conflict with his reading of the text. His reading of the text leads him to question whether amillennialists are right about the Millennium (784-5). He appears to approve of premillennial reading (785), but he is clearly reluctant to align himself with any one theological position (see also 787-8). This is where Koester’s strength turns into a weakness. His desire to avoid theological presuppositions and categories leads him to provide a fairly weak and unhelpful presentation of his view of the Millennium and where his view fits with the work of prior interpreters.
Koester’s desire to avoid historical and theological presuppositions also leads him to try to find neutral ground with respect to the authorship of Revelation. The book clearly tells us that its author is a prophet (22:9), but nowhere in the book does he claim to be an apostle. Therefore, that is the position that Koester takes with respect to authorship. John was a prophet in Asia Minor, but not an apostle of Jesus, and little else needs to be said about him (66-69). Such an approach to the authorship of Revelation has the appearance of neutrality and a textual warrant, but it is not a very satisfying solution to the authorship question.
One surprising weakness of Koester’s work is his tendency to gloss over difficult Greek constructions with little or no comment. On the other hand, a surprising and refreshing strength is found in his treatment of the seven letters to the seven churches. He repeatedly questions whether the details of each letter can be accurately correlated to historical data related to each of the seven cities. He is trying to correct a trend that has been given too little scrutiny and rests heavily upon Colin Hemer’s The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in Their Local Setting (1986).
Overall, I have found Koester’s commentary to be helpful and worthy of consulting. He will provide aid to anyone who is trying to study the book of Revelation. His preteristic leanings are clear, but his desire to provide a close reading of the text is equally clear.
Preview or buy Koester’s commentary here.
