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 Rad’s 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. 10.269–72). Eventually, some of

the poorer Jews of Susa began to suspect that Daniel’s proximity was responsible

for their neighbors’ wealth. So they asked that Daniel’s 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: Daniel’s 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 aren’t operating with the same perspective as

the rest of us.

If a person can read Hebrew, the transliterated text is unnecessary. If the reader isn’t 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 265–67), 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 2.1–34), 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 (404–359).

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 172–83). 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 4:49–101 (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 volume’s 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 wouldn’t 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 6:1–28 [2–29].

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 36:22–23). 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. It’s 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