Daniel

Word Biblical Commentary #30

by John E. Goldingay

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.

Genres: Reference, Biblical Studies, Theology

132 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1989

About the author

John Goldingay is David Allan Hubbard Professor of Old Testament at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California. An internationally respected Old Testament scholar, Goldingay is the author of many commentaries and books.

Reviews

[Fred Kohn · Rating 5 out of 5]

Five stars for this one, although I preferred J. J. Collins's commentary, which I have in my library. I borrowed this one with the intent of evaluating whether I also wanted it in my library. I don’t think so. I bought the Collins commentary because Daniel's prophecies often come up in online discussions I participate in, and I wanted to have a scholarly commentary ready to refer to the relevant material. Collins's commentary is superior for this purpose, I think, to Goldingay's. Not only is it considerably longer, but the Explanation sections of the Goldingay commentary tended to wax theological. This is great if you are a Christian looking for inspiration linked to the book of Daniel, but not especially helpful for an unbeliever like me.

A second reason I read the book was to see if Goldingay had anything to say about two hypotheses introduced to me via Samuel Frost's commentary on Daniel. The first of these is that Darius the Mede and Cyrus the Great are the same person. Unless I missed it, Goldingay does not mention this hypothesis. Those who hold to the hypothesis make great hay out of the fact that Cyrus the Great was about 62 years old when Babylon fell (Daniel 5), the same age that Darius the Mede was said to be when he began to rule Babylon. But Goldingay does not believe the 62 years to be literal, suspecting instead that it symbolizes the 62 shekels which are the value of the words written on the wall in Daniel 5. This is a pattern for him; Goldingay also thinks the 490 years of Daniel 9 are not literal but symbolic, representing a man's lifetime (70 years) times the seven fold punishment of Leviticus 26.28

The second hypothesis that Frost's commentary introduced me to is the idea that the four different metals of the dream statue in Daniel 2 represent successive rulers rather than successive empires. Goldingay has a lot to say about this. He mentions B. D. Eerdmans's 1932 hypothesis that four Babylonian rulers are intended. He accepts this hypothesis, but modifies it, in part because it is difficult to decide which four of the five Babylonian rulers (Nebuchadnezzar, Evil-Merodach, Neriglissar, Labashi-Marduk, Nabonidus) would be intended. This is particularly true since only three Babylonian rulers are mentioned in the Hebrew Bible (Nebuchadnezzar, Evil-Merodach, Belshazzar). So Goldingay hypothesizes that the four kings in Nebuchadnezzar's dream statue are Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, Darius the Mede, and Cyrus the Great.

One thing about this book that I didn’t like was that I thought the topics covered in the conclusion (Streams of Tradition Behind Daniel, The Book's Structure, The Book's Origin, The Book's Authors, The Book's Theological Significance) would have been better covered in the introduction.

But the bottom line is that there are important hypotheses that Goldingay covers in more detail that Collins does. So if you intend to be a Daniel specialist, you should probably have access to both volumes.

[Rylan S. · Rating 2 out of 5]

Helpful for some things. Provides a nice overview of the book and its themes. Sometimes the author has useful insights into how the book relates to itself and the rest of the canon. Overall he is much more helpful in understanding the first half of Daniel. However, Goldingay misses the mark in his over-reliance on interpreting Daniel through the historical events of its time and in his view that, "biblical prophecy does not generally give a literal advance portrayal of events" (96). These greatly narrow his perspective on the book and its possible interpretations.

[Jess Alex · Rating 4 out of 5]

Un très bon commentaire dans l'ensemble. Une fois que l'on est habitué à la forme particulière de cette série. Apparemment forme ayant une mauvaise réputation.

En effet un chapitre se décompose ainsi

Bibliographie
Traduction
Note de traduction/critique textuelle.
Forme (genre littéraire)
Structure
Contexte historique
Commentaire
Explication.

Dans les faits les informations sont ainsi donné au compte goutte, un peu ici un peu là. Dans un commentaire plus "classique" toutes les informations sur un verset étant généralement donné en une seule fois.

Dans les faits ça fait aussi qu'il n'y pratiquement pas de note de bas de page, à l'exception de référence.

Mais au final ce n'est pas si mal car avoir les informations une par une rend la chose bien plus digeste, notamment dans un livre comme Daniel où les informations historiques sont très nombreuses.
On évite aussi de sauter des détails intéressants qui autrement se seraient trouvés relégués en note. Donc possiblement dispensable.

Au final la forme me convient.

Pour le commentaire en lui-même Goldingay est excellent dans l'introduction (le survol des différentes interprétations au cours de l'histoire est très bon) et dans les chapitres de récit (Dan 1 à 6)
.

Pour la partie visionnaire (7 à 12) Goldingay a un peu plus de mal au départ. Cela étant du au fait que ce sont des textes qui se répondent beaucoup l'un à l'autre et qu'il est difficile de n'en commenter qu'un à la fois.

Mais au final Goldingay parvient à reprendre la main en utilisant des formes originales de commentaire (comme se mettre dans la peau de Daniel qui s'adresse aux lecteurs).

[Douglas Fyfe · Rating 4 out of 5]

Splendid. Really good book. Deals well with the difference between signs and symbols as we think about the implications of the characters of the book.
Also very helpful for technical details.