Leupold‘s Exposition of Daniel sets the bar high for exegesis on a book of prophecy that has been the bane of many exegetical writers. In a world where commentaries abound that treat the prophetical passages of Daniel as novelties or play fast and loose with interpretation Leupold‘s exposition is delivered sanely and reverently. Completely within his element in the Hebrew and Aramaic languages, and well acquainted with the vast amount of literature on Daniel, Leupold shows himself up to the task of dealing with this sometimes controversial book.
“For a careful examination of the list presented at once reveals the fact that at least twelve of the seventeen words listed are in the class of governmental terminology used at governmental headquarters—names of officials, technical terms, and the like. If Daniel moved in the circles of the new Persian government he must have become immediately aware of the new regime that the Persians set up, their new nomenclature to designate the new officials.” (Pages 23–24)
“Archaeology knows of a Daniel from the Ras Shamra tablets, who was the son of the god El. But Ezekiel would hardly put such a mythological personage by the side of Noah and Job. But, as we have just pointed out in the quotation from Keil, it is not necessarily the length of time that has elapsed that determines whether a man has just claim to fame.” (Page 6)
“To begin with, the grandson of Jesus Sirach, who wrote the famous introduction to his grandfather’s book, which book is called Ecclesiasticus, and who wrote this introduction about a hundred years or more b. c., remarked in the course of it about the inadequacy of the available translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek.” (Page 41)
“The next negative contention is that Daniel is unlike the noted prophets of the Lord in that he avoids the use of the distinctive name for the true God, Yahweh. In doing that he is said to be more like those later writers, who, the nearer we get to New Testament times, studiously avoid this most holy name. Says one of the critics: ‘So we find in the Book of Daniel a similar avoidance of the awful Tetragrammaton.’” (Page 10)