Daniel: A Commentary, by Carol A. Newsom.

Westminster John Knox Press,

2014.

My first encounter with the esteemed Old Testament Library series of commentaries was
Gerhard von Rads Genesis in 1982. It was eye opening, to say the least (and one of the very
best commentaries I have ever read, even to this day. Certainly the best on Genesis). I have a
certain love for the series and the old Germans whose works were translated into English and
made accessible to the German-less. Noth, Eichrodt, von Rad and many others made their
debuts on my ever expanding shelves in volumes from that series.

Adding to the usefulness of the series is the forthcoming volume by Carol Newsom which should
be available in Novmber of this year (so just in time to pick up a copy at a discount at SBL).
Westminster/John Knox has allowed me the opportunity to take a look at it and offer some
preliminary thoughts.

The publisher describes the volume thusly:

The book of Daniel is a literary rich and complex story known for its apocalyptic
style. Written in both Hebrew and Aramaic, the book begins with stories of
Daniel and three Jewish young men Hananiah (Shadrach), Mishael (Meshach),
and Azariah (Abednego) who are exiles among the remnant from Judea in
Babylon in sixth century b.c.e. It ends with Daniel's visions and dreams about the
Jewish community that offer comfort and encouragement as they endure
persecution and hope for deliverance into God's kingdom.

Newsom's commentary offers a fresh study of Daniel in its historical context.
Newsom further analyzes Daniel from literary and theological perspectives. With
her expert commentary, Newsom's study will be the definitive commentary on
Daniel for many years to come.


The Old Testament Library provides fresh and authoritative treatments of
important aspects of Old Testament study through commentaries and general
surveys. The contributors are scholars of international standing. The editorial
board consists of William P. Brown, Professor of Old Testament, Columbia
Theological Seminary in Decatur, Georgia; Carol A. Newsom, Charles Howard
Candler Professor of Old Testament, Candler School of Theology at Emory
University in Atlanta, Georgia; and Brent A. Strawn, Professor of Old Testament,
Candler School of Theology at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia.

The great thing about the OTL is that as time and opportunity as well as necessity permit,
volumes in the series are replaced by more modern works. This is essential, of course, as
scholarship is always moving, sometimes ploddingly, forward. The earlier Daniel by Porteous
was good, but now it has been replaced by a better tool.

The volume contains numerous useful features including various excurses and discussions of the
Book of Daniel in Reception History. It also offers a very extensive bibliography on primary
and secondary literature.

The introduction covers all of the building blocks found in modern critical commentaries:
discussions of texts, genre, the social location of the author, and the rest. As expected, Newsom
does a good job of describing and illustrating all of these issues. She does not, however, write
the sections on Reception History. That task is left to Brennan Breed. He begins his
contribution thusly:

Benjamin of Tuleda, a Jewish world traveler who provided fascinating and
detailed accounts of medieval Asia and Africa, stumbled upon a literal struggle
over the legacy of Daniel when he visited the Persian city of Susa in about 1160
.e. according to Benjamin, a river divided a community of wealthy diasporic Jews
from a community of poor diasporic Jews. On the side of the wealthy Jews, along
with the marketplaces full of luxurious goods for sale, was the sepulcher of the
biblical Daniel. Though chapter 10 depicts Daniel on the banks of the Tigris river
(10:4), Susa is the last city mentioned as a home to Daniel in the biblical book
(8:2), and since at least the first century C .e., some Jewish writers have believed
that it holds the tomb of Daniel (Josephus, Ant. 10.26972). Eventually, some of
the poorer Jews of Susa began to suspect that Daniels proximity was responsible
for their neighbors wealth. So they asked that Daniels tomb be relocated to their
side of the river. Unsurprisingly, the wealthy neighborhood declined the request,
and hostilities ensued. As Benjamin narrates:

So war prevailed between them for many days, and no one went forth or came in
on account of the great strife between them. at length both parties growing tired
of this state of things took a wise view of the matter, and made a compact, namely
the coffin of Daniel be taken for one year to the one side and for another year to
the other side. This they did, and both sides became rich. (Benjamin 52).

There is something to be learned from this story: Daniels legacy is indeed an
enrichment to those who struggle for it (p. 28).

The commentary proper is nicely illustrated but, as is too common, transliterates Hebrew and
Aramaic words and phrases rather than printing them in Hebrew font. This is so troublesome
that every time it occurs I feel like publishers just arent operating with the same perspective as
the rest of us.

If a person can read Hebrew, the transliterated text is unnecessary. If the reader isnt familiar
with Hebrew, the transliterated form may indicate roughly what the word may have sounded
like- but the danger of those readers concluding either that their pronunciation is correct or that
they know Hebrew is too big a risk to take. It merely leads down the path of dilettantism.

In this age of computers and the ease with which Hebrew and Greek can be printed can we not
simply all agree to abandon the practice of transliterating ancient texts?

Perhaps the highlight of the volume are the frequent excurses. For instance:

Excursus 1: Origin and Development of the Four-Kingdoms Schema

Concern about the significance of the transfer of kingship from one city, dynasty,
or nation to another was a long-standing preoccupation in the ancient Near East.
It is reflected in the Sumerian King list (ANET 26567), as well as in the
Egyptian dynasty lists (e.g., the Abydos and Karnak king lists). In the first
millennium, interest was directed to the series of international empires that ruled
one after the other. Although the earliest evidence for this historiographical
schema is found in two Greek authors, Herodotus (5th c. B .C.E.) and Ctesias
(4th c. B .C.E.; preserved in Diodorus Siculus 2.134), the schema is not of
Greek but of Persian origin. Herodotus himself indicates that he relies on Persian
sources (1.95), and Ctesias was the court physician to Artaxerxes II (404359).
Both Herodotus and Ctesias describe the transfer of sovereignty as proceeding
from the Assyrians to the Medes and then to the Persians. While Herodotus gives
a historically sober account, Ctesias describes the three as holding vast world
empires. Both the grandiosity of the schema and its apparent function of
legitimizing Persian domination are consistent with other aspects of Persian
imperial ideology (Briant 17283). This sequence of Assyria, Media, and Persia
is also reflected in the book of Tobit (14:4), which was likely composed in the
eastern Diaspora, and in the Jewish Sibylline Oracles 4:49101 (p. 80).

The excursus goes on for a bit after these first sentences. These sorts of historical nuggets are
quite well suited to excurses and those offered are very helpful indeed.

The other key aspect of the volumes usefulness is the scattering throughout of more Reception
Historical discussions by Breed. The commentary is worth obtaining in no small part thanks to
these segments by Breed.

It wouldnt be proper to offer a review of a volume by Newsom without also providing an
illustration of her work in it. Accordingly, what follows is a snippet from her work on Daniel 9:1

[1] The reference to the first year of Darius the Mede locates the narrative in Dan
9 as occurring after the death of Belshazzar in ch. 5 and the accession of Darius in
5:31 [6:1], but probably before the undated narrative in Daniel 6:128 [229].
Although Darius the Mede is a nonhistorical character (see comments on 5:31
[6:1]), he serves to open up an important narrative space in the book. Historically,
it was Cyrus the Persian who defeated Babylon, and according to biblical
tradition, issued an edict in his first year allowing the Judeans to return and
rebuild the temple in Jerusalem, in order that the word of YHWH by the mouth
of Jeremiah might be fulfilled (Ezra 1:1; cf. 2Chr 36:2223). By inserting the
reign of the fictional Darius the Mede, the author locates Daniel at a moment
when the defeat of Babylon has already occurred, confirming part of the prophecy
of Jeremiah, but before any permission has been given to restore the temple in
Jerusalem (p. 289).

And etc.

Students of the Hebrew Bible ought to read this volume. Its festooned with useful material to
the point of exceeding its predecessor in the OTL series as much as a searchlight exceeds a
candle in its power to illuminate.


Jim West
Quartz Hill School of Theology
Philippine Baptist Theological Seminary