What do you think?
Rate this book
The Book of Daniel
This is the second edition of a 1979 commentary on the book of Daniel. The commentary is completely revised, and the introduction in particular is here much extended and addresses fundamental questions regarding the book of Daniel and the apocalyptic movement it inaugurates (with 1 Enoch). Daniel is an indispensable trove and reference about issues like the apocalyptic vision of world's periodized history, the notion of Son of Man, messianism without a messiah, the belief in resurrection, the kingdom of God, the centrifugal spread of divine revelation, and the positive role of the Jewish diaspora. This edition is meant for scholars, college and university researchers, and students of the Bible (of the Old Testament and New Testament) in general.
302 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1979
8 people are currently reading
9 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
March 16, 2017
I love my family. My family loves me. The only thing that tends to get in the way of all that is religious beliefs. My year of diving into the deep end of the pool on the subject of faith has been ongoing for about 18 months now. I don't really see much of an end in sight.
A few weeks ago I was invited to a religious function to hear a family member speak. I went. I got to hear a lecture from the pulpit about the glory of creation, how it's evidence for God's magnificence, and then a short digression about the prophetic words from the book of Daniel about the last days we were currently in.
That the wonders of the natural world screams out for a creator is something I've thought a lot about over the years. I personally don't see it, and think it's a great example of pareidolia run amok. But the prophecy stuff, well, I'll be honest. When I was leaving my former faith all those many moons ago the 'fulfilled prophecies' were one of the things that had me hanging on the longest.
During that time I finally dove into all of them that I was aware of, whether they were about the coming of the Christ or the Babylonian captivity or destruction of Jerusalem or whatever. I paid close attention.
I came away from that time thinking that those prophecies either weren't prophecies at all, or that they had much better explanations than some sort of divine revelation. But the details of how I came to those conclusions were fuzzy to me after all those years.
So, I picked this book up, partially because it's been called a sort-of definitive critical look at the Book of Daniel, which is in most Christian circles, is the book most closely associated with the coming apocalypse of any in the bible, save for The Book of the Revelation of John.
In all, this is a tough read. It's largely academic, and was translated from French. It goes over the Hebrew or Aramaic used in each verse and compares meanings, alternate texts, and alternate translations. It's pretty detailed in that area, and it doesn't interest me greatly. I did read it all, even though most of that went over my head.
The book also referenced a LOT of other works, and didn't do much to present what those works said. So there is a lot of, "So and so said this verse is an interpolation of a later redactor, but the use of language in v7 is consistent with ch 6 so we argue it's original to an older tradition."
Again, I'm fine with that sort of stuff. It's dry, but it's letting me know stuff. Whatever. That was most of the book, honestly.
The translation, by the way, of the Book of Daniel (not the translation of this book from French, but from the original languages the of the biblical text itself, into English), I did enjoy. It's a plain translation and shows some emphasis I've not read in other versions of the book I've read. I don't know if it was the author's own translation (that happens a lot in books I've read) or if it was just pulled from a copy of the bible he happened to have with him at the time. I just know it's cool.
But the part that I actually enjoyed was the open discussion the author had about the visions of Daniel (or of a king, which Daniel would interpret) and what these meant.
And, to be honest, it makes it clear to me that interpreting the book of Daniel as anything other than a work of a second century bce Jew trying to get his persecuted brethren to hold fast under the yolk of Antiochus IV is due to wishful thinking on the part of the reader.
The reasons for this are numerous (really numerous, I started a document to sort-of explain them and it quickly got to be so long I think I'd have to put it out as an ebook due to its length). Needless to say, an open history book next to an open book of Daniel more or less paints a picture of someone forging visions of a folk hero 400 years prior that shows they were then living in the very end days.
That's not a popular view amongst Christians I know today, as it's taken to be describing events still in our future. But a careful reading makes it clear that's just a nonsensical reading of the text.
I have much better understanding of Daniel and it's historical context now. I'd recommend anyone read this book, but only if they are obsessively interested in the material being covered. Otherwise, the internet is FULL of people who've distilled the larger points made here and written about them much more eloquently. If with a bit less detail.
A few weeks ago I was invited to a religious function to hear a family member speak. I went. I got to hear a lecture from the pulpit about the glory of creation, how it's evidence for God's magnificence, and then a short digression about the prophetic words from the book of Daniel about the last days we were currently in.
That the wonders of the natural world screams out for a creator is something I've thought a lot about over the years. I personally don't see it, and think it's a great example of pareidolia run amok. But the prophecy stuff, well, I'll be honest. When I was leaving my former faith all those many moons ago the 'fulfilled prophecies' were one of the things that had me hanging on the longest.
During that time I finally dove into all of them that I was aware of, whether they were about the coming of the Christ or the Babylonian captivity or destruction of Jerusalem or whatever. I paid close attention.
I came away from that time thinking that those prophecies either weren't prophecies at all, or that they had much better explanations than some sort of divine revelation. But the details of how I came to those conclusions were fuzzy to me after all those years.
So, I picked this book up, partially because it's been called a sort-of definitive critical look at the Book of Daniel, which is in most Christian circles, is the book most closely associated with the coming apocalypse of any in the bible, save for The Book of the Revelation of John.
In all, this is a tough read. It's largely academic, and was translated from French. It goes over the Hebrew or Aramaic used in each verse and compares meanings, alternate texts, and alternate translations. It's pretty detailed in that area, and it doesn't interest me greatly. I did read it all, even though most of that went over my head.
The book also referenced a LOT of other works, and didn't do much to present what those works said. So there is a lot of, "So and so said this verse is an interpolation of a later redactor, but the use of language in v7 is consistent with ch 6 so we argue it's original to an older tradition."
Again, I'm fine with that sort of stuff. It's dry, but it's letting me know stuff. Whatever. That was most of the book, honestly.
The translation, by the way, of the Book of Daniel (not the translation of this book from French, but from the original languages the of the biblical text itself, into English), I did enjoy. It's a plain translation and shows some emphasis I've not read in other versions of the book I've read. I don't know if it was the author's own translation (that happens a lot in books I've read) or if it was just pulled from a copy of the bible he happened to have with him at the time. I just know it's cool.
But the part that I actually enjoyed was the open discussion the author had about the visions of Daniel (or of a king, which Daniel would interpret) and what these meant.
And, to be honest, it makes it clear to me that interpreting the book of Daniel as anything other than a work of a second century bce Jew trying to get his persecuted brethren to hold fast under the yolk of Antiochus IV is due to wishful thinking on the part of the reader.
The reasons for this are numerous (really numerous, I started a document to sort-of explain them and it quickly got to be so long I think I'd have to put it out as an ebook due to its length). Needless to say, an open history book next to an open book of Daniel more or less paints a picture of someone forging visions of a folk hero 400 years prior that shows they were then living in the very end days.
That's not a popular view amongst Christians I know today, as it's taken to be describing events still in our future. But a careful reading makes it clear that's just a nonsensical reading of the text.
I have much better understanding of Daniel and it's historical context now. I'd recommend anyone read this book, but only if they are obsessively interested in the material being covered. Otherwise, the internet is FULL of people who've distilled the larger points made here and written about them much more eloquently. If with a bit less detail.
Displaying 1 of 1 review