Uncover the mysteries of Daniel with leading Old Testament scholar John Goldingay. Goldingay illuminates Daniel’s historical setting and uses it to explain the book’s prophecies. he analyzes the composition of the book, and provides a fresh translation.
The Word Biblical Commentary delivers the best in biblical scholarship, from the leading scholars of our day who share a commitment to Scripture as divine revelation. This series emphasizes a thorough analysis of textual, linguistic, structural, and theological evidence. The result is judicious and balanced insight into the meanings of the text in the framework of biblical theology. These widely acclaimed commentaries serve as exceptional resources for the professional theologian and instructor, the seminary or university student, the working minister, and everyone concerned with building theological understanding from a solid base of biblical scholarship.
“My presupposition for the commentary is therefore that the forward projections in Daniel were designed to bring a message that was meaningful to people in the postexilic period, and I shall seek to interpret the seer’s visions in the light of material in the book itself and in the light of the history of the period as we know it.” (Page xxxix)
“Whether the stories are history or fiction, the visions actual prophecy or quasi-prophecy, written by Daniel or by someone else, in the sixth century b.c., the second, or somewhere in between, makes surprisingly little difference to the book’s exegesis.” (Page xl)
“A world-transcending or world-encompassing scheme is adapted to communicate a perspective not on the cosmos as a whole, nor even on history as a whole, but on the particular segment of history that directly concerns Daniel and his readers.” (Page 161)
“But the text’s failure to clarify what the statue represented may reflect the fact that it is more concerned with the challenge it issued to the three Jews, and the fact that god, king, and nation are closely interwoven and support each other (cf. the army commander’s combining of pragmatic and religious arguments—the latter themselves mutually contradictory—in 2 Kgs 18–19). Even if this was Nebuchadnezzar’s statue, falling prostrate before it would imply acknowledgement of his god, as Nebuchadnezzar’s falling prostrate before Daniel (2:46—the same words) implied acknowledgment of Daniel’s God.” (Page 70)