What do you think?
Rate this book
Daniel, which is part of The NIV Application Commentary Series, helps readers learn how the messages of Daniel can have the same powerful impact today that they had when they were first written.
CD-ROM
First published March 23, 1999
106 people are currently reading
123 people want to read
About the author
Tremper Longman III
198 books128 followersTremper Longman III (PhD, Yale University) is the Robert H. Gundry Professor of Biblical Studies at Westmont College in Santa Barbara, California. Before coming to Westmont, he taught at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia for eighteen years. He has authored or coauthored numerous books, including An Introduction to the Old Testament, How to Read Proverbs, and commentaries on Daniel, Ecclesiastes, Proverbs, Jeremiah and Lamentations, and Song of Songs.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
December 15, 2022
2.5
read for my daniel class
ok but why did i actually learn cool bible facts
read for my daniel class
ok but why did i actually learn cool bible facts
January 25, 2013
The NIV Application Commentary Series is great for people who want an in-depth understanding of the book they are studying, but want to combine that with their devotions. It's as the name implies--application-oriented. Oftentimes devotional-type books do little to enhance your understanding of the Bible and its background or help you learn to read it on your own, and commentaries fall short of being devotional in nature--they don't help you apply it. This book does what it sets out to do.
I learned a lot from reading this, and it was different from other books I have read on Daniel in that the main point wasn't to nail down all the historical details of the prophesies. Longman believes the larger point of these prophesies is to engender a confidence in the early readers that God was the one in control, behind the scenes. This was a welcome change.
That said, I wish that he had done a little more by way of taking a stance on some of the difficult aspects of the book. He seem to fall back on his overall thesis--that God is in control and has a plan, regardless of outward appearances--too frequently. The brush he painted with was a very broad one.
Overall though, this book enhanced by understanding of Daniel and encouraged my confidence in my belief that God is in control. He does a good job justifying his reading of Daniel against the grain of the popular approach by conservative Christians of coercion by way of legislation or culture change. He shows that Daniel did not panic or raise a fuss over the empire's anti-Jewish legislation, but rather obeyed God. This is what made Daniel such a compelling figure--his personal devotion to God without being showy about it or attempting to enforce his views on the masses.
I learned a lot from reading this, and it was different from other books I have read on Daniel in that the main point wasn't to nail down all the historical details of the prophesies. Longman believes the larger point of these prophesies is to engender a confidence in the early readers that God was the one in control, behind the scenes. This was a welcome change.
That said, I wish that he had done a little more by way of taking a stance on some of the difficult aspects of the book. He seem to fall back on his overall thesis--that God is in control and has a plan, regardless of outward appearances--too frequently. The brush he painted with was a very broad one.
Overall though, this book enhanced by understanding of Daniel and encouraged my confidence in my belief that God is in control. He does a good job justifying his reading of Daniel against the grain of the popular approach by conservative Christians of coercion by way of legislation or culture change. He shows that Daniel did not panic or raise a fuss over the empire's anti-Jewish legislation, but rather obeyed God. This is what made Daniel such a compelling figure--his personal devotion to God without being showy about it or attempting to enforce his views on the masses.
February 27, 2022
At the outset, I want to make it clear that I am not a theologian, but a layman, an engineer. So, I don’t think like a trained theologian. That said, I like the format of the NIV Application Commentary series. Each passage or pericope evaluated in the commentary is addressed in three stages: original meaning, bridging context and contemporary application. The original meaning section often brings in historical and cultural context and can provide me with references for follow-up reading if I so desire. Furthermore, it is sufficiently detailed for me to get a feel for the commentator’s thought processes. The bridging context section helps me to understand what the commentator is thinking as he progresses toward application in daily life. If I am to be a faithful Christian, I need to handle accurately the word of truth in how I apply it, and these sections may well give me ideas as well as teach me to develop application myself. However, it also allows me to critically evaluate the commentator’s own choices. In my line of business, I perform calculations to evaluate the adequacy of nuclear power plant systems to perform their design functions and to make recommendations for improvement, if necessary. The calculations have a methodology and feature both inputs and assumptions. Assumptions can be divided into major and minor assumptions. If a minor assumption turns out to be incorrect, the analysis remains valid because there is little to know effect on results. However, if a major assumption is falsified or if the underlying methodology is flawed, then the conclusions drawn from the analysis are in jeopardy. As I read this commentary, I thought through its methodology and assumptions and observed what appears to be a major hole in the reasoning associated with one particular argument. That said, I was otherwise very impressed with what I saw. So, I will discuss that one weakness and what I consider to be the strengths in this commentary.
What I consider to be a weak argument pertains to why Daniel, Hananiah, Azariah and Mishael chose not to eat the meat and wine from Nebuchadnezzar’s table and instead consumed water and vegetables. What I am accustomed to hearing about this is some combination of the following:
• The meat and wine may have been unclean by virtue of being sacrificed to idols.
• The meat might have consisted of unclean animals.
• The meat might have been prepared without draining the blood.
Dr. Longman takes aim at the first option by pointing out that there is no reason to think that the vegetables wouldn’t have been offered to idols, as well. That is a valid point and should have been considered by its proponents. That said, I remember that 1 Corinthians addressed meat sacrificed to idols. That there was no discussion regarding vegetables sacrificed to idols implies that they weren’t. Now, 1 Corinthians was written in the context of 1st century AD Greco-Roman culture and not 6th century BC Babylonian culture; so, Babylonian practices may well have differed here, and Dr. Longman may have been influenced by Bel and the Dragon, in which entire meals were left overnight in temples for the gods and were surreptitiously eaten by the priests and their families. As far as I am concerned, the jury is still out on this one.
Dr. Longman rightly notes that there is no Old Testament prohibition on drinking wine and makes this part of his argument for ruling out the options regarding unclean animals and blood. Given that wine could be part of a drink offering, the prospect of it having been offered to idols remains reasonable. Furthermore, given that Daniel and his companions faced a constant bombardment of Babylonian culture and religion, any dulling effect of the wine might well hamper their ability to maintain their faithfulness to Yahweh.
The above issues are reasonably debatable, but what truly disturbed me was how Dr. Longman finished his argument and drew his conclusions:
“The diet of vegetables was a temporary regimen, as we learn from later texts that imply that Daniel at least enjoyed rich foods later in life. Its purpose was to keep the four pious Judeans from believing that their physical appearance (and by consequence, perhaps, their intellectual gifts) were the gift of the Babylonian culture.”
Dr. Longman states the following in a supporting footnote:
“. . . if Daniel’s motivations in chapter 1 were to keep kosher, avoid idolatrous defilement, or political entanglement, then we should question why his eating habits changed later in life.”
Seriously, does food have to be less than appetizing to honor God? Daniel and his friends were asking for special treatment. Consider the two following possible requests for special treatment:
1. Please just provide me with water and vegetables. I am not interested in the wine or meat.
2. Please take the time to prepare meat for me in accordance with the Torah, and it must only be clean animals as designated by the Torah.
Which request is more likely to be granted a captive? No. 1 is a no-brainer, hands down. Later, Daniel reached high office. Don’t you think that might have given him the clout to insist on No. 2?
So, I still think that Daniel and his friends were trying to comply with the Torah the best way they could. Even so, I agree that the point of Daniel 1 was that they owed their physical and intellectual flourishing to Yahweh and not to the Babylonians. They chose to risk their necks to obey Yahweh, and He blessed their obedience. God may choose other ways to bless obedience, but at this time, He made that choice for His own purposes. An implausible argument is not needed to make the point that Yahweh, not Babylon controlled events, that they ultimately were dependent on Yahweh. Finally, why Daniel and his friends chose this course of actions and why Daniel subsequently chose to record it are likely to be different. The record puts on stark display that dependence on Yahweh.
When it comes to the prophetic parts of Daniel (Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in chapter 2 and Daniel’s visions in chapters 6-12), many commentators get bogged down on eschatological hobby horses. They spend a lot of time arguing why their position (premillennial, amillennial, etc.) is correct and why the others are wrong. When I read a diverse collection of such commentaries in the past, I came away with the impression of a circular firing squad, not to mention the feeling that sorting out such issues was more complicated than untying the Gordian knot. What I absolutely didn’t get from the experience was an understanding of how to apply the truths communicated by those visions in my life today. This is where Dr. Longman excelled. He avoided the eschatological quagmires and focused his energy on the lessons about God and man that could be drawn therein. I am not going to go into the details but am glad that he made that choice. I am not denigrating eschatology, and there is much to be learned about it from Daniel, but that is not all to be learned. There is so much more depth there, and I am delighted that Dr. Longman chose to explore it.
What I consider to be a weak argument pertains to why Daniel, Hananiah, Azariah and Mishael chose not to eat the meat and wine from Nebuchadnezzar’s table and instead consumed water and vegetables. What I am accustomed to hearing about this is some combination of the following:
• The meat and wine may have been unclean by virtue of being sacrificed to idols.
• The meat might have consisted of unclean animals.
• The meat might have been prepared without draining the blood.
Dr. Longman takes aim at the first option by pointing out that there is no reason to think that the vegetables wouldn’t have been offered to idols, as well. That is a valid point and should have been considered by its proponents. That said, I remember that 1 Corinthians addressed meat sacrificed to idols. That there was no discussion regarding vegetables sacrificed to idols implies that they weren’t. Now, 1 Corinthians was written in the context of 1st century AD Greco-Roman culture and not 6th century BC Babylonian culture; so, Babylonian practices may well have differed here, and Dr. Longman may have been influenced by Bel and the Dragon, in which entire meals were left overnight in temples for the gods and were surreptitiously eaten by the priests and their families. As far as I am concerned, the jury is still out on this one.
Dr. Longman rightly notes that there is no Old Testament prohibition on drinking wine and makes this part of his argument for ruling out the options regarding unclean animals and blood. Given that wine could be part of a drink offering, the prospect of it having been offered to idols remains reasonable. Furthermore, given that Daniel and his companions faced a constant bombardment of Babylonian culture and religion, any dulling effect of the wine might well hamper their ability to maintain their faithfulness to Yahweh.
The above issues are reasonably debatable, but what truly disturbed me was how Dr. Longman finished his argument and drew his conclusions:
“The diet of vegetables was a temporary regimen, as we learn from later texts that imply that Daniel at least enjoyed rich foods later in life. Its purpose was to keep the four pious Judeans from believing that their physical appearance (and by consequence, perhaps, their intellectual gifts) were the gift of the Babylonian culture.”
Dr. Longman states the following in a supporting footnote:
“. . . if Daniel’s motivations in chapter 1 were to keep kosher, avoid idolatrous defilement, or political entanglement, then we should question why his eating habits changed later in life.”
Seriously, does food have to be less than appetizing to honor God? Daniel and his friends were asking for special treatment. Consider the two following possible requests for special treatment:
1. Please just provide me with water and vegetables. I am not interested in the wine or meat.
2. Please take the time to prepare meat for me in accordance with the Torah, and it must only be clean animals as designated by the Torah.
Which request is more likely to be granted a captive? No. 1 is a no-brainer, hands down. Later, Daniel reached high office. Don’t you think that might have given him the clout to insist on No. 2?
So, I still think that Daniel and his friends were trying to comply with the Torah the best way they could. Even so, I agree that the point of Daniel 1 was that they owed their physical and intellectual flourishing to Yahweh and not to the Babylonians. They chose to risk their necks to obey Yahweh, and He blessed their obedience. God may choose other ways to bless obedience, but at this time, He made that choice for His own purposes. An implausible argument is not needed to make the point that Yahweh, not Babylon controlled events, that they ultimately were dependent on Yahweh. Finally, why Daniel and his friends chose this course of actions and why Daniel subsequently chose to record it are likely to be different. The record puts on stark display that dependence on Yahweh.
When it comes to the prophetic parts of Daniel (Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in chapter 2 and Daniel’s visions in chapters 6-12), many commentators get bogged down on eschatological hobby horses. They spend a lot of time arguing why their position (premillennial, amillennial, etc.) is correct and why the others are wrong. When I read a diverse collection of such commentaries in the past, I came away with the impression of a circular firing squad, not to mention the feeling that sorting out such issues was more complicated than untying the Gordian knot. What I absolutely didn’t get from the experience was an understanding of how to apply the truths communicated by those visions in my life today. This is where Dr. Longman excelled. He avoided the eschatological quagmires and focused his energy on the lessons about God and man that could be drawn therein. I am not going to go into the details but am glad that he made that choice. I am not denigrating eschatology, and there is much to be learned about it from Daniel, but that is not all to be learned. There is so much more depth there, and I am delighted that Dr. Longman chose to explore it.
February 5, 2018
One of the hardest books to preach through is the Book of Daniel. For many of the scene in the Book of Daniel is half historical while the other half is prophecy. It is therefore extremely helpful that Zondervan Publications has put out a commentary on the Book of Daniel in the NIV application Commentary series. This commentary is well-known and respected in both popular and scholarly circles. For the NIV application Commentary series truly helps the exegete understand the original context of the text as well as its contemporary significance.
This commentary is written by fame theologian Tremper Longman III. His background and his deep understanding of the historical books of the Old Testament combine to make a phenomenal work on the book of Daniel. With regard to the introductory section to both of the books inside this work I found the introductory section on the Book of Daniel comparable to most mid-level commentaries diving into both composition purpose as well as a few biblical theological components.
In dealing with the commentary proper, the textual commentary is written in pericope sections rather than dealing with a verse by verse exegetical study. This is the form at which the NIV application study commentary, is exclusivity written init was therefore not a surprise, but it is something that a reader should expect. This does not negate in any way this commentaries usefulness rather it enhances a preacher’s focus on seeing the forest through the trees. I therefore recommend this commentary wholeheartedly as a useful tool to both the preacher, teacher, uneducated laymen, and Sunday school teacher. I do suggest though that this commentary be paired with a more solid one that deals exegetically with each verse.
These books was provided to me free of charge from Zondervan Press in exchange for an unbiased, honest review.
This commentary is written by fame theologian Tremper Longman III. His background and his deep understanding of the historical books of the Old Testament combine to make a phenomenal work on the book of Daniel. With regard to the introductory section to both of the books inside this work I found the introductory section on the Book of Daniel comparable to most mid-level commentaries diving into both composition purpose as well as a few biblical theological components.
In dealing with the commentary proper, the textual commentary is written in pericope sections rather than dealing with a verse by verse exegetical study. This is the form at which the NIV application study commentary, is exclusivity written init was therefore not a surprise, but it is something that a reader should expect. This does not negate in any way this commentaries usefulness rather it enhances a preacher’s focus on seeing the forest through the trees. I therefore recommend this commentary wholeheartedly as a useful tool to both the preacher, teacher, uneducated laymen, and Sunday school teacher. I do suggest though that this commentary be paired with a more solid one that deals exegetically with each verse.
These books was provided to me free of charge from Zondervan Press in exchange for an unbiased, honest review.
January 16, 2023
One of the book bloggers I follow posted about Tremper Longman's book on Revelation. I read the review, appreciated it, thought maybe I should read it, and decided not to. That same morning I was looking up something during my devotional time and my study Bible randomly fell open to the list of contributors. My eyes fell directly on Tremper Longman listed as a commentary contributor. I had never heard of Mr. Longman prior to that day. I don't believe in coincidences and decided to order his book on Revelation right away. Because I had been meaning to study Daniel, and knew I needed to do so prior to studying Revelation, I ordered this used commentary.
The book arrived and it sure wasn't pretty. I am also not a fan of books that print sections of the Bible in them. I prefer to read from my own Bible--it's almost like a space filler.
This is a study from 1999 and I liked it more than if it had been a recent edition. I found the commentary to be extremely enjoyable with just the right amount of challenge. I am very excited to move on to Longman's Revelation as my next Bible study.
The book arrived and it sure wasn't pretty. I am also not a fan of books that print sections of the Bible in them. I prefer to read from my own Bible--it's almost like a space filler.
This is a study from 1999 and I liked it more than if it had been a recent edition. I found the commentary to be extremely enjoyable with just the right amount of challenge. I am very excited to move on to Longman's Revelation as my next Bible study.
October 23, 2017
This is an excellent commentary for helping readers navigate the often murky waters of the Old Testament book of Daniel. Longman avoids the excesses of many who devise elaborate systems to give us exact dates of future events and exact names of the players who will bring us to the brink of the end of history. In an even-handed and reasoned approach, Longman admits the difficulties in interpreting the text and offers his scholarly opinions with a sense of humility and grace. I especially appreciate the format of the NIV Application Commentary series. The discussion of each passage in the book of Daniel includes a section that discusses the original meaning of the text, that is, what it meant to the original readers; a section that bridges the original context with today; and a section that discusses the contemporary significance of the passage. This format is very helpful in preparing sermons and Bible studies.
April 8, 2021
The majority of this book is great for what it is. It’s a non-academic commentary on Daniel designed for small group prep and preaching prep. It has some pretty good applications (though outdated at points).
My main problem is that Tremper takes an early dating of Daniel, and I take a late dating. Which is fine. He’s very generous on the subject. But I only began to take a late dating when I started reading this commentary. He just doesn’t do a great job of presenting the early view. And while that isn’t very important for the most part, it becomes significant in the latter half of the book of Daniel. I might recommend this to someone who takes a 6th century BC view of Daniel. But def not to someone who takes the 2nd century BC view.
Overall a bit disappointing because I love Tremper’s other stuff.
My main problem is that Tremper takes an early dating of Daniel, and I take a late dating. Which is fine. He’s very generous on the subject. But I only began to take a late dating when I started reading this commentary. He just doesn’t do a great job of presenting the early view. And while that isn’t very important for the most part, it becomes significant in the latter half of the book of Daniel. I might recommend this to someone who takes a 6th century BC view of Daniel. But def not to someone who takes the 2nd century BC view.
Overall a bit disappointing because I love Tremper’s other stuff.
July 15, 2024
excellent balance between scholarly and practical
This commentary series as a whole is exemplified by this commentary on Daniel. It is very well researched and provides a lot of insight and context to the text of Daniel. It also provides us with a bridge to how the ancient text applies to us today. As many times as I have studied Daniel this commentary provides new insight and maybe more importantly hope and a renewed faith in our awesome God.
This commentary series as a whole is exemplified by this commentary on Daniel. It is very well researched and provides a lot of insight and context to the text of Daniel. It also provides us with a bridge to how the ancient text applies to us today. As many times as I have studied Daniel this commentary provides new insight and maybe more importantly hope and a renewed faith in our awesome God.
February 4, 2019
I found this commentary helpful at various points during my studies of Daniel. My experience with this commentary series has been a lot of hit and miss. This volume is more a hit than a miss. I just finished doing an overview sermon series of Daniel instead of a deep dive. I would not recommend this as the primary commentary for anyone wanting to do a deep study of Daniel.
January 8, 2021
I found this a nice, lighter commentary that helps to go through one of the harder books of scripture.
Prophetic books and apocalyptic literature is difficult, but Longman does an excellent job of making a difficult topic easier to understand. Daniel, however, is still a challenging book.
It was an excellent volume to accompany other Daniel commentaries.
Prophetic books and apocalyptic literature is difficult, but Longman does an excellent job of making a difficult topic easier to understand. Daniel, however, is still a challenging book.
It was an excellent volume to accompany other Daniel commentaries.
March 21, 2020
A good balance of understanding the text from a critical lense, understanding the original meaning, and making application to the 21st century. Recommended as a good source to start studying the book of Daniel.
June 15, 2022
4 stars is too much, but 3.8 seems just about right.
Longman is helpful, sane, does explain what apocalyptic genre is all about well. I would say it's more stimulating in the first half of the book than the latter.
Longman is helpful, sane, does explain what apocalyptic genre is all about well. I would say it's more stimulating in the first half of the book than the latter.
February 2, 2019
Longman did a great job introducing the book and its main theme: "despite the circumstances, God is in control." I started off with a great affinity for this book and its simple approach to the theme of Daniel, but I quickly began dreading reading this book.
The twelve chapters of Daniel are broken into two six part pieces. The first six are stories of what happened to Israel, Daniel, and Babylon during Daniel's life. The second six are prophecies that were given to Daniel mostly toward the end of his life. In the first piece of Daniel, Tremper has at least two chapters that end with an application section that is several pages long and has nothing to do with the story being discussed. I was initially frustrated by this, but found nothing unbiblical in those applications (other than not belonging here), and so I continued to push on gleaning what I could.
As I got into the second section of Daniel, he quickly began making statements about how prophecy is done that directly flew in the face of what the text actually said. He would say things like "numbers are especially used in a symbolic manner in apocalyptic." While he tried hard to support that view throughout the book, the simple fact is that Daniel, the prophet of this book and an expert on prophetic interpretation, did not hold that to be true (see Daniel 9:2). Further, many scholars have pointed out how the numerics in Daniel's prophecies do work out, and so we see Longman take his bias into the text and ignore what it actually says. Longman also takes the prophecy in Daniel 9:1-27 and applies them backward to the previous 70 years, rather than forward as is clearly intended in the text.
The other big issue I found in this commentary is Longman's dismissiveness of people's differing opinions. Where Stephen R. Miller (in his Daniel: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture) would bring up someone's view and do his best to show you it intact, Longman would say "So and so disagrees with this statement, but they're wrong, let's move on." Which means you either need to have the same resources he did when reading the book or have firm grasp of the various opinions on all the topics in Daniel. But even if that is the case, you would then have the argument clearly presented to you and Longman's half a sentence dedicated to saying it's dumb, and be left thinking Longman is incapable of thinking the issue through since he can't give reasons for his disapproval other than saying "I disagree." (Luckily for me, many of his statements like this were directed at Miller, and I could easily see the argument for real.)
All in all, I found this book annoying and quite off topic. I did find good Biblical truths in it, but often times those truths came not from Longman, but from the Scripture he quoted.
To see more reviews check out my blog: This Sporadic Life
The twelve chapters of Daniel are broken into two six part pieces. The first six are stories of what happened to Israel, Daniel, and Babylon during Daniel's life. The second six are prophecies that were given to Daniel mostly toward the end of his life. In the first piece of Daniel, Tremper has at least two chapters that end with an application section that is several pages long and has nothing to do with the story being discussed. I was initially frustrated by this, but found nothing unbiblical in those applications (other than not belonging here), and so I continued to push on gleaning what I could.
As I got into the second section of Daniel, he quickly began making statements about how prophecy is done that directly flew in the face of what the text actually said. He would say things like "numbers are especially used in a symbolic manner in apocalyptic." While he tried hard to support that view throughout the book, the simple fact is that Daniel, the prophet of this book and an expert on prophetic interpretation, did not hold that to be true (see Daniel 9:2). Further, many scholars have pointed out how the numerics in Daniel's prophecies do work out, and so we see Longman take his bias into the text and ignore what it actually says. Longman also takes the prophecy in Daniel 9:1-27 and applies them backward to the previous 70 years, rather than forward as is clearly intended in the text.
The other big issue I found in this commentary is Longman's dismissiveness of people's differing opinions. Where Stephen R. Miller (in his Daniel: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture) would bring up someone's view and do his best to show you it intact, Longman would say "So and so disagrees with this statement, but they're wrong, let's move on." Which means you either need to have the same resources he did when reading the book or have firm grasp of the various opinions on all the topics in Daniel. But even if that is the case, you would then have the argument clearly presented to you and Longman's half a sentence dedicated to saying it's dumb, and be left thinking Longman is incapable of thinking the issue through since he can't give reasons for his disapproval other than saying "I disagree." (Luckily for me, many of his statements like this were directed at Miller, and I could easily see the argument for real.)
All in all, I found this book annoying and quite off topic. I did find good Biblical truths in it, but often times those truths came not from Longman, but from the Scripture he quoted.
To see more reviews check out my blog: This Sporadic Life
September 4, 2015
This is the first I've read of the NIV Commentary series and it was good for a devotional commentary. Longman was quite good and balanced on chapters 1-6 but I was disappointed with his approach to the apocalyptic portion of his work. His treatment of the 70 weeks in Daniel 9 was especially shallow. He often skipped over some of the more difficult interpretive issues with nothing more than a quick nod. I appreciated his interaction with the dating of Daniel throughout the whole work. This commentary will serve the preacher well if read alongside several more technical works.
March 29, 2012
Usually I really enjoy the NIV Application Commentaries. This one however . . . rather dry, not nearly as much personal application as some of the other ones that I have read.
November 24, 2016
I recently preached a sermon series on the book of Daniel, and this was the commentary I most frequently consulted.
December 16, 2016
Along with Enns on Exodus, one of the best NIVAC commentaries I've used. Again, was very helpful for preaching through Daniel, and was enjoyable to read.
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews